Never saw an anti in the woods, but almost all of my hunting has been on private land.

I run into some at work, and there are a lot of them in the burbs. I can't say for sure i win all the arguments, because I don't think any of them have changed their opinion. But one thing that is for sure is most of them don't have a clue.

I used to work with an anti-gun person. He was an intelegent guy (masters in physics), but not when it comes to this subject. He once said to me that it would be OK if a farmer used a gun to protect his livestock from predators. I guess nobody ever told him that there are no wolves or mountain lions in Ohio. He also said it was not OK for that same farmer to use a gun to protect himself or his family from human predators. Hmmm. How can you argue with that kind of logic.

Sever years ago, the burb where i used to live passed a law of no hunting, even though there were several farms and large areas of private land where it was safe to hunt with a bow. After about 3 years, the changed the law to allow some bow hunting (on 10 acre or larger pieces of land) because the traffic accidents involving deer had tripled.

I didn't really care one way or the other, because I wouldn't enjoy hunting in an environment like that. However, it was at least somewhat effective at controlling the deer population.

I guess you're right. If changing their opinion is the goal, I probably lost most of them. Either way, I usually go out of the arguments feeling like I've made the most sense, even if they think otherwise.

I would be interested though in hearing that guys logic for his opinion on animal vs. human predators. That is just some really weird thinking.

I don't care who shoots animals, but from my point of view, I would say that motor vehicle/deer collisions are just as effective at controlling populations, though they seem to be more costly and the meat sometimes can get badly mangled.

Posted on: 2007/7/24 11:23

_________________The doctrine of free will is the invention of the ruling class.

guttrap wrote:I guess you're right. If changing their opinion is the goal, I probably lost most of them. Either way, I usually go out of the arguments feeling like I've made the most sense, even if they think otherwise.

I would be interested though in hearing that guys logic for his opinion on animal vs. human predators. That is just some really weird thinking.

Well, I kinda helped paint himself into that corner. Ideally, he would like to see all guns outlawed. then he presented compromises.

Here is anoher one. He was against hunting, but said if hunting was necessary, all hunting weapons should be kept in an armory untill they were needed and then returned. Like I said, no clue.

JackM wrote:I don't care who shoots animals, but from my point of view, I would say that motor vehicle/deer collisions are just as effective at controlling populations, though they seem to be more costly and the meat sometimes can get badly mangled.

Jack, I take it you never had a friend or loved one hit a deer with a motorcycle.

The truth is, more people are killed by deer in this country than any other animal. Of course that includes collisions.

This will be my 32nd year hunting in PA. In that time I've taken 14 bucks and 12 does. I've also taught my son to hunt (See his first buck below, age 12). I've recently lost my enthusiasm for deer hunting since the game commision decimated the population in the "big woods" counties of north central PA. The last 2 seasons I did not see a deer on opening day.

I have grown to appreciate the bear hunting in PA, we have some of the best black bears in the world in this state. I haven't got one yet, but I did have a shot at one 3 years ago. My dad hit one last year, but another party put the bear down. We'll get one before too long...

Attach file:

Mitch Greg and buck 2002.JPG(0.00 KB)

Posted on: 2007/7/24 12:41

_________________Only one constant in the universe, all men are equal in the eyes of the fish. -GulfGreyhound paraphrasing Herbert Hoover

There are a lot less deer where I grew up in NWPA too compared to when i was a kid. Even though we see a fraction of the deer we used to see, they are bigger and healthier. I remember my first year hunting. We counted 63 deer on opening day. Only one had any antlers, and it was a small spike. it is more exciting to see lots of deer, but I'm not convinced that those were better times.

Of course I never hunted much up in the big woods, so it's apples to oranges. In other words, I'm not saying you are wrong either.

Seriously, I am still having a hard time believing you are serious on this one. It's common sense. Fewer deer means fewer human and deer interactions. Also, I can absolutely gaurantee that that deer in the picture I provided earlier has not been hit by any automobiles in the last two years and that is not speculation. what more do you need?

Last year, there was an estimated deer harvest of 361,560. Knowing that the overall herd is usually somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 million, that is about 30 percent of the herd that no longer gets in the way of cars. Of those harvested deer, 226,270 were antlerless deer. Lets say for argument, 200,000 of those were actually doe (allowing for antlerless buck). Most of those does are already pregnant when they are harvested, and the ones that aren’t, most likely would get that way soon. Lets use a conservative number of 1.5 fawn per doe (it also makes the math easier). This number varies depending on the health of the herd, but it is probably conservative at 1.5. That’s 300,000 fawns that were not hit by cars this spring. born. So, that is over 600,000 deer that have not been hit by cars this year that otherwise could have been if they were not harvested.

Hunting is used to manage a healthy herd. Without it, the pops would explode.

Jack, maybe you are still in trout mode where a little bit of harvest makes no difference in the overall population because of super high birth rate, and high natural mortality. Deer birth rates are relatively small, and so is their mortality rate (excluding mortality from hunting). Harvesting a third of the population has quite an impact. Without it, the population would soar in the short term. More deer means more collisions. This is not speculation, it is common sense. Maybe you are looking at it long term. It is true that if you removed mortality from hunting, eventually the population would stabilize at a different level with higher mortality from starvation and disease and Buicks.

I could go on and on, but I think you would just view it as speculation. The truth is, you don’t need a scientific study for this one, however, there is lots of info out there if you care to look. I don’t care to look, because I don’t need convincing. But i will throw you this one bone.